ARTA 2006.003 F.M. Henkelman Collège de France Matthew W ...€¦ · France Charles E. Jones - Blegen Library Matthew W. Stolper - Oriental Institute Achaemenid Elamite Administrative

1

ARTA 2006.003

Achemenet Décembre 2006

Wouter F.M. Henkelman - Collège de France Charles E. Jones - Blegen Library Matthew W. Stolper - Oriental Institute Achaemenid Elamite Administrative Tablets, 2: THE QASR-I ABU NASR TABLET* • • ThesiteofQapr-iAbuNaprisonamountainspurattheedge

of theplainofShiraz,about sixkmeastof themoderncity.The Persian Expedition of the Metropolitan Museum of Artexcavated in the citadel, town and tombs there for threeseasons, between 1932 and 1935. The standing remains of

* We are indebted to Joan Aruz, Curator of Ancient Near Eastern Art at the

Metropolitan Museum of Art, for making this tablet available to us, and for

permissiontopublishit,toMelanieHatzforenablingustomakenewpicturesof

thetablet,andtoDonaldWhitcomboftheOrientalInstituteoftheUniversityof

Chicago for elucidating his work on the Qapr-i Abu Napr excavations.

Abbreviations: Fort. = unpublished Persepolis Fortification tablets now in the

NationalMuseumofIran,citedfromtransliterationsandphotographsbyGeorge

G.CameronandnotesbyRichardT.Hallock.PF=FortificationtextsinHallock

1969; PF-NN = unpublished Fortification texts cited from transliterations by

Hallock;PFS=PersepolisFortificationSealsaslistedinGarrison&Root1998.

2

ARTA 2006.003


AchaemeniddoorwaysthathadbeenreportedbyIranianandEuropean travelers of the eighteenth, nineteenth and earliertwentieth centuries drew the excavators’ first attention.Visitors who had looked closely, from Eugène Flandin andPascal Coste in 1841 onward, concluded that AchaemeniddoorwayswerenotoriginaltoQapr-iAbuNapr,thattheyweremade of pieces that had been brought from another site inSasanianor Islamic times.On his firstvisit to the site,ErnstHerzfeld concurred, but in 1926 he put forward the opinionthat theAchaemenid architectural fragments were remainsofan original Achaemenid building on the site. Whenexcavations at Qapr-i Abu Napr began, Herzfeld’s spectaculardiscoveries at Persepolis were attracting internationalattention, and the hope of uncovering another AchaemenidstrongholdinthePersianhomelandwasstrong.1

BytheendofthefirstseasoninSpring,1933,thathopewasdisappointed but not extinct. The excavators had confirmedthattheAchaemeniddoorwayswerenotoriginal,buttheystillthoughtthearchitecturalelementsofthedoorwaysmighthavecome from “some as yet undiscovered building in theneighborhood” (Hauser 1933: 42). They opened the secondseason in the last days of October, 1933, by ignoring this“Achaemenianbait”andbeginningworkatthefortressontheopposite end of the site, but even so, they soon found pre-Sasanianobjectsandsherds,someofAchaemeniddate,onthe

1 Hauser1933:39-40;Whitcomb1985:16;Flandin&Coste1851-52:65-66;Herzfeld

1926:250.

3

ARTA 2006.003


westslopeofthefortress.Amongthese findswasacuneiformtabletwithimpressionsoftwoAchaemenidsealsandatextinAchaemenidElamite.The tabletwas foundonthewestslopeonNovember12,1933.In formandcontent it isverysimilarto Achaemenid Elamite administrative texts from thePersepolis Fortification that had been excavated by Herzfeldonlyafewmonthsearlier.2

The pre-Sasanian finds of the early second season againraised“expectationsofaseriesoflevelsmakingacross-sectionthroughallthePersiancultures,”expectationsthatwereagaindisappointed (Winlock,Hauser&Upton 1934:4, 13). Thesefinds were “more false bait” (Whitcomb 1985: 18). Theyprovedtobetheonlypre-Sasanianitemsfound,andtheyhadno stratigraphic or architectural connections. The portableAchaemenidobjects–stonebowlsandplates,aninlayedchertbird’s head ornament, seals, andeven the cuneiform tablet–wereinterpreted,liketheAchaemenidarchitecturalfragments,as intrusive, brought to the siteasantiquities, decorationsorcurios in Sasanian times or later. Qapr-i Abu Napr could becharacterizednotasthesiteofanAchaemenidfortress,butasa “memento of the early pillaging of Achaemenian sites”(Wilkinson1965:345).

2 MMA36.30.62:Wilkinson 1965:344f.,pl.LXXVIIfig.24;cf.Whitcomb1985: 191.

Herzfelddidnotexcavate thePersepolisFortification tablets in 1934,as isoften

said,but inthespringof1933;hehadalreadygivenacomprehensivedescription

of the tablets in a lecture at the Royal Asiatic Society in September, 1933

(Anonymous1934).

4

ARTA 2006.003


Achaemenid Elamite administrative records from Persepolis,

however,kept thepossibilityofanAchaemenidoccupationatQapr-i Abu Napr alive. Texts on Persepolis Treasury tablets,published in1948andafter,and textsPersepolisFortificationtablets, published in 1969 and after, mention a place calledTirazziš (sometimes spelled Širazziš) as a regionaladministrative center, the site of a “fortress” (Elamitehalmarriš), a “storehouse” (Elamite kanti) and a “treasury” orcraft-production center (Elamite kapnuški, with gangs ofkapnuškip, “treasury workers”) at Tirazzi⌃. This toponym wasrecognizedasanancestral formof thenameShiraz; theplacethat it named was thought to be located at or near modernShiraz; and this fixed point was one of the keys toinvestigations of the historical geography of AchaemenidPersiaonthebasisofthePersepolistexts.3

Islamicgeographicalandhistoricalwriters,however,indicatethat the city of Shiraz was an Islamic foundation, and noarchaeological evidence contradicts them. Hence, pre-IslamicQapr-i Abu Napr has been the best candidate for a nearbyAchaemenidsite thatmighthavebeencalledby theancestralformof thenameShiraz,althoughnoarchaeologicalevidenceunequivocally supports this candidacy (e.g., Herzfeld 1926:250; Frye 1973: 2). William Sumner put the case explicitly:although Achaemenid architectural fragments and objects

3 Hallock 1969:762s.v.Tirazziš;Hinz&Koch1987:335s.vv.h.ti-ra-iz-zí-iš,etc.,

1092s.v.h.sir-zí-iš,1169s.v.ši-ra-iz-zí-iš,etc.Cf.Sumner1986:19-20;Koch1990:

41-68;Vallat1993:282f.s.v.Tiraz(z)iš.

5

ARTA 2006.003


could be considered curious antiquities brought to the sitefromelsewhere

thepresenceofunmistakableAchaemenid sherds from a trenchon the

slope of the citadel is not so easily dismissed. These sherds are, in my

opinion, good evidence for an Achaemenid occupation on the citadel,

the remainsofwhichcouldeasilyhavebeendestroyed in thecourseof

ParthianandSasanianconstruction… it isprematuretodismissQasr-e

AbuNasrasthemostprobablelocationofTirazzi⌃(Sumner1986:19f.).

What is trueof theAchaemenidsherdsmightalsobe saidof

theAchaemenid tablet. Unlike stone bowls,metalwork, andcarvedarchitecturalornament,thetabletisnotanintrinsicallyattractiveobject.Itsvalueasanantiquityorcuriowouldnotbeobvious toanobserver inSasanianorIslamic times,or toanyonewho found itbefore thenineteenth-centurydecipher-mentofthecuneiformscripts.Evenafterwards,itwasonlythediscovery of similar tablets at Persepolis in 1933 that wouldhavemadethispieceinteresting toacollector.Justbecauseithas so little to attract anyone but a twentieth-centurycuneiform epigrapher, some commentators have viewed it asan oddity among the Achaemenid pieces from Qapr-i AbuNapr(e.g.,Wilkinson1965:345;Whitcomb1985:191).

TheformofthetextontheQapr-iAbuNaprtablethasexactparallels among Persepolis Fortification tablets, but thespecific collocationofnames, seal impressions,anddetails inthe textdoesnotoccurinknownFortificationtexts.Thesealimpression on the reverse of the Qapr-i Abu Napr tablet issimilartosealsontheFortificationtablets,butnoimpressions

6

ARTA 2006.003


of the same seal have been identified among knownFortification tablets. Hence, nothing forces the conclusionthat the Qapr-i Abu Napr tablet came from Persepolis. IfQapr-iAbuNaprwas indeed thesiteofAchaemenidTirazzi⌃,this tablet might be the sole surviving document from anadministrativecenter thatwascontrolled fromPersepolis,justas MDP 11 308 may be the sole surviving document from anAchaemenidadministrativearchiveatSusa(Garrison1996).

Nevertheless, there is reason to hesitate over this inference.This tablet wasdiscoveredat the same time and in the sameareaastheotherAchaemenidsmallfinds.Itcametolightonlya few months after Herzfeld’s work had made tablets of thiskind known as real and valuable Achaemenid objects, whenthediscoveryoftheFortificationarchivehaddrawnevenmoreinternationalattentiontotheworkatPersepolis,andwhentheemployment of hundreds of men at Qapr-i Abu Napr mightdependonrekindlingtheMetropolitanMuseumExpedition’swaning hope of similar discoveries. The Achaemenid sherdsandtheElamitetabletmightbeunsuitablecuriosforSasanianorearlyIslamicoccupantsofQapr-iAbuNapr,but theywereverysuitable“bait”toputbeforetheexcavators(asWhitcomb1985:18 intimates).Under thesecircumstances, itseems tousveryprobable,butnotactuallyprovable, that theQapr-iAbuNaprtabletcamefromthePersepolisFortificationfind,thatitwas not brought to Qapr-i Abu Napr in Sasanian or earlyIslamictimes,butonlyin1933or1934.

7

ARTA 2006.003


MMA 36.30.62 Description MetropolitanMuseum ofArt,RogersFund =PF-NN2303. 3.51x2.49cm CategoryC6 Transliteration

1. 60ráp-tam52. 75hi-du3. 20ba !-gi-maš4. 25┌ka4

┐-ri GURU⇧ME⇧5. 25┌KI

┐+MIN SALME⇧6. PAP2ME5 UDU.NITÁME⇧7. ka4-da-ka4 kur-mínLowerEdge8. HALhi-in-du-iš- 9. na am-ma be-ul Reverse10.21-me-man-na

Translation 1-460 rams,75ewes,20 intermediate (yearling)ewes,25male

lambs,25 female lambs: 6-7altogether205 headof small live-

8

ARTA 2006.003


stock, alive 7-9 (as/for?)allocation by Hindu⌃, 9-10balanceofthe21styear.

Comparanda Cf. PF 0283-0287 (esp. PF

0285[year20]andPF0287[year 24]), PF-NN 0007,PF-NN 0125, PF-NN 0395,PF-NN 0444, PF-NN 0719,PF-NN 1226, PF-NN 2140,PF-NN 2302, PF-NN 2563(allCategoryC6).

Seals Seal reverse: see Garrison

& Root 2001: 7: “similarbutnotidenticaltoPFS32*…andPFS677*.”Anothersealleftedge.

Comments 2. hidu “ewe” rather than

“femalegoat”(soHallock),onthebasisofaMiddleElamitetextfromTall-iMalyanwithseparateentries fornumbersofhidesofÙZME⇧,“femalegoats”andhi-du; in thatcasekariri(karri) indicates“lamb(s),”ratherthan “kid(s),” as the Aramaic gloss ’mrn on PF 0695 implies,andbagimašreferstoayearlingewe,notafemalegoatofinter-

9

ARTA 2006.003


mediateage(Hinz&Koch1987:656;Hallock1969:16).3. ba

!writtenŠU.4. Or: ka4-ri-‹ri ›; cf. kar-ri PF

0287:2,5,PF-NN1226:2,5.6. Properly, “head of small

livestock,” that is, sheepand/orgoats,ofallageandsex categories. UDU.NITÁalso renders penu (other-wise U8.UDU) or a syno-nym of penu in Neo-Babylonian texts (e.g., DaRiva2002:211).

8. Hindu⌃: “India(n).” Cf.HALHi-du-iš, a cultic expert(šatin), PF 0596:2. Nototherwise attested as per-sonalnameinFortificationtexts.

10

ARTA 2006.003


Interpretation Whatdoesthistext,lackingafiniteverb,actuallyrecord,and

for what purpose? Hallock assigned it and similar texts toCategoryC6,labeled“Other ‘Deposits.’”Itisoneofhiscate-gories that is loosely defined in formal and functional terms(cf. 1969: 17:“of uncertain character”). Hallock alsoassignedtothiscategorynotonlytextsinsimilarformatsthatdealwithlivestock–cattleandpoultryaswellassheepandgoats–butalsotextsthatdealwithothercommodities.

Handling livestock, however, is fundamentally differentfromhandlinggrain,wine,andothersuchcommodities,sincelivestockcannotbeheldinstorageexceptonthehoof.Under-standingtheC6textsthatdealwithlivestockinparticularcallsfor comparison with texts of other categories that deal withanimals, especially the elaborate accounts of Category W.Hallock’sfastidiousanalysisoftheseaccountswasthebasisforstudies of the handling of sheep and goats in the PersepolisadministrationbyToyokoKawase,4whoarguedconvincinglythat the Persepolis records of sheep and goats represent alopsided view of a “consignment system” (otherwise charac-terized as a system of share-breeding), in which the owners(the crown and its administrators) managed large stocks of

4 Hallock1969:57ff.,especially65-68.Kawase1980,complementedbyKawase1984

and1986.SeealsoHinz1971:288-90;Briant1979:143-150(=1982:338-345),2002:

425f.and440f.;Henkelman2005:157-59.

11

ARTA 2006.003


animals5byallocatingflockstoindividualherdsmenwhowereremunerated with a share of the offspring. The view islopsided in the sense that it conveys only information ofinterest to the owners; it is lopsided also in the sense that itconveysonly administrativedata withoutmakingexplicit thelegalorcustomaryrelationshipsthatboundtheadministratorsand the consignees. In this interpretation, the “coreinstitution”thatlinkstheexternalsphereoftheherdsmenandthe internal sphere of the owners and consumers was thenutannuš,bothanorganizationandalocale.6

The characterization of “external” and “internal” spheresborrowsfromVanDriel’sstudyofthehandlingofsheepandgoats represented in Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid

5 PF2007accountsformorethan16,000sheepandgoats;cf.Hallock1969:66.6 Hallock 1969: 739: “stockyard;” Hinz & Koch 1987: 1012: “Viehhof;” Tavernier

2002:659;allacceptingan Iranianetymology,*nidani-/*nitani-),“depot, store.”

WecannotacceptG.Giovinazzo’sdivergentproposalthatnutanu(ya)šisborrowed

from Akkadian nadanu, “give,” with a meaning “gift,” hence “tax” (1989: 203-

206).Itisimplausibleonformalgrounds(e.g.,El./nu/forIr./ni/iswellattested,

butEl./nu/forBab./na/ isnot;final–š iscommonontranscribed Ir. words but

unwarranted on transcribed Bab. words); it is without a convincing Akkadian

donorformincomparablemeaning(despitemimma nadanatu[notnadanu], “any

gifts (to thecrown) at all” [not: aparticular tax], frequent in fifth-century legal

texts from the Mura⌃û archive of Nippur but not elsewhere); it postulates an

unlikelykindofborrowing(whyborrowfromAkkadian,notAramaic?andwhy

borrowawordofgeneralmeaningwhenIranianandElamitesynonymswere in

commonuse?).

12

ARTA 2006.003


BabyloniantemplearchivesfromUrukandSippar(VanDriel1993). Like the Fortification archive, the Babylonian templearchives supply the perspective of administrative records onthemanagementofverylargestocksofanimals.Theyreflectashare-breedingsystem,carriedoutongeneraltermsthatseemto have parallels in the Persepolis texts: an expectation ofabout662/3lambsandkidsper100viableewesandshe-goatsto be paid annually to the owners (additional offspring tobelong to the herdsman), and perhaps also an allowance of10% deaths among the offspring (additional losses to becharged to the herdsman).7 Given the similarities ofperspective and operating relationships, the understandingsgainedbyrecentworkonBabyloniantemplerecordsofsheepand goats may offer systematic comparanda to elucidatePersepolis records.8 In the absence of such systematiccomparison,weconfineourselvestoremarksonsometermsof

7 Two-thirds yield: cf. Hallock 1969: 66; Kawase 1980: 46-8. A ten percent loss

allowanceisperhapstobeseenintheentriesdiscussedbyHallock1969:66onPF

2008 (“584 sheep [i.e.,goats]onhand …58 (asusual 1/10of thecarry-over …)

were brought in, slaughtered, and issued to the herdsman [batmana], having no

effectontheherd;”Kawase1980:41(itemB),43(“deliveredto…thebatmanafor

slaughter”).Mightsheepandgoatsdescribedasbaziš,“tax,”becompared also to

Neo-Babyloniananimalsleviedaspibtu? 8 VanDriel’sprogrammaticstudyisthestarting-pointformoreextensivestudiesof

animalhusbandryandconsumptioninthetemplearchives.Sippar:daRiva,2002:

173-309;Uruk:Kozuh2006.SeealsoGehlken1990:19-55;Bongenaar1997:416-

422;VanDriel&Nemet-Nejat1994;Zawadski2003.

13

ARTA 2006.003


thistextinconnectionwithotherPersepolistexts.

1-3. As A.M. Arfaee observes (personal communication), animalsin the species-sex categories that Hallock interpreted as maleoutnumberthose inthecategoriesthatHallockinterpretedasfemale, while flocks in normal herding practices –modern,traditional, and ancient, amply reflected in Old and Neo-Babylonian texts –are preponderantly female, for obviousreasons. Nevertheless, Hallock (who was cautious about anyclaim to certainty in Elamite) insisted that “there is … nodoubtabout the age and sex categories” (1969: 16); there arenogroundsforchanginghisassignments,andampleevidenceformaintainingthem.9

In this text, femaleanimalsoutnumbermales.Nevertheless,thesexratios,withabouttwo-thirdsasmanyramsasewesandyearling females, make it unattractive to see this as aninventoryof a flock in thehandsofan individualherdsman,comparable to theNeo-Babylonian listsofanimalscalled “onthe spot herd inventories,” “Standardurkunde,” or “Einzel-inspektionen.”10 Sex ratios vary widely in texts of similarform:PF0285and0287enumeratebothsheepandgoats,withmuch higher ratiosof females tomales; other textshave still

9 Like Babylonian texts, the Persepolis texts are highly regular (but not perfectly

consistent) in listing male animals before female animals, noted explicitly as

GURU⇧(-na),“male”andSAL-na,“female”inthecaseoflambsandkids,forwhich

there are no sex-specific terms. The sex-category assignments are also strongly

implicit in the projected yield of 66 2/3 young per viable 100 females. 10 VanDriel1993:220ff.;Gehlken1990:21ff.;daRiva2002:204-207,235.

14

ARTA 2006.003


lower ratios of females to males than this text (e.g. PF-NN000726:61adultsheep,23:41adultgoats;PF-NN01251:7adultgoats). If texts of similar form record similar situations, theyare situations that involve groups of animals of variable sizeandcomposition;thegroupsarenotoften,ifever,activeherdsconsignedtoaherdsman.

4-5. 50lambs=75ewesx2/3,corresponding totheexpectedyield

asenteredinaccountsofCategoryW,butthisratiodoesnotrecurinsimilarC6texts.

7. kadaka (katukka), “alive”: Neo-Babylonian nap⌃atu (ZIME⇧),

literally “lives,” designates head of livestock in herd totals(CAD N/I 301 s.v. napištu mng. 5b), but a counterpart usagehere isexcludedbysimilar texts thatdescribe the livestockashalpika,“slaughtered”orperhapssimply“dead,”e.g.,PF0283,PF0284.“Alive”and“dead”arealsoaccountingcategories.InW texts, kadaka (katukka) labels numbers of animals onaccount at the first step of the annual calculation (balancecarried forward from the previous year [amma bel #-na] less10% dead or slaughtered [halpika] and animals lost? [pitika]).At theendof thecalculation it labelsgrand totalsofanimalsheld on account and carried forward to the following year(year-initial “live” animals plus unexpended newborns),contrasted with the total of animals “removed” (mazzikanewbornsplus10%dead;cf.Kawase1980:40,43,45).

7-9. kurminPN-na: inmostC6texts,Hallock translated“entrusted

to PN,” rather than the usual “entrusted by PN;” his choice

15

ARTA 2006.003


seems to imply that he understood these texts to recordincome rather than disbursements (1969: 10f.). PF 0290:5ff.describeslivedonkeysaskurminPN-naGN“allocatedto/by?PN(at?) GN.” Other C6 text combine kurmin PN-na with finiteformsofthecognateverbkurma-and/orformsofkuti-,“carryaway” or marri- “hold,” but in ways that seem inconsistentwithrecordsofincome:

kurminPN1-naPN2ak akkayaše marrišPN1 hi kurmaš“(cattle)allocatedfor

PN1,PN2andhisassociate(s)took?,theyallocated(them)tohim,toPN1”

(PF 0291:7-11), where the final phrase would seem to confirm that the

preceding kurmin PN1-na indicates “allocated to PN1,” yet Hallock

preferred to translate it as “entrusted by PN1,” making a sequence:

suppliedbyPN1,heldbyPN2,allocatedtoPN1;

PN1ak PN2kutišPN3 i kurmaš kurminPN4-na“(sheep andgoats)PN1and

PN2carriedaway,theyallocated(them)tohim,toPN3,allocatedby?PN4”

(PF-NN 0444:5-11) might represent a similar sequence: animals taken

awayandturnedovertoPN3afterbeingissuedbyPN4;

PN1hišePN2?idakaPN3-ikkimar tingišdaPN4GNdušdaPN5PN6-nai kurmašda

“(cattle) PN1 together with PN2?11 sent from (a herd under the control

of?) PN3, PN4 received at GN (and) allocated (them) to him, to PN5 (a

subordinateof)PN612”(PF-NN1727:2-11)hasthesamesequence,but in

reversedorderandwithadditionalintermediaries:animalsissuedbyPN3,

11 HALak-ka4-nap,notlikelyavariantofakkayaše,henceperhapsapersonalname.12 PN6=theroyalwomanArtystone.

16

ARTA 2006.003


sent by PN1 and PN2, received on the spot by PN4, and subsequently

handedovertoPN5,theagentofPN6;

PN1kuzzaPN2hi kurmaš“(goats)PN1took,heturned(them)overtohim,

to PN2” (PF 0627:4-7) suggests much the same operation, but in a less

complicatedform,andwithoutnotationofanoriginalsupplier;

(sheepandgoats)kurmin PN1-na kadakaPN2akkayašeGNmarriš“allocatedby?PN1,alive,PN2hisassociate(at)GNtook”(PF-NN2302:6-11).

kurmin PN-na in these textsperhaps records responsibilitynotfor income,but foroutlays: living animals for storageon thehoof with herdsmen, still considered as assets on annualaccounts; dead animals for consumption, considered“removed”fromcurrentbalances.

9f. amma: Hallock translates “on hand,” analyzing the word as

adverbial am,“now,”+ locativepostposition–ma,hence withinherentlytemporalsense(1969:666).Hinz&Koch1987:51,prefer to see it as an irreducible noun, “Bestand,” governingthefollowingphrasewith–nainpassageslikethisone,hence“stock”or“balance”ofyearso-and-so.Interpretationasnounis favored by such constructions as ammae, “its amma” (withpossessive -e) and amma nimak, “exists/is there as amma.”Phrasessimilar to theone inMMA36.30.62occur inC6 texts(PF 0288:5, PF 0289:7, PF 0290:7f., PF-NN 0395:9f.; PF-NN

17

ARTA 2006.003


2061:12).13 They do not occur in texts that record dead(halpika) animals. In accounts of livestock, the counterpartphrasePAP#ammabel#-namarkstheopeningbalancecarriedforwardfromthepreviousyear,priortodeductionsfordeathsandexpenditures,andprior tooperations in thecurrentyear(PF2008:8,PF2009:14,PF2010:15).

WouterF.M.HENKELMAN

wouter.henkelman@college–de–france.frCharlesE.JONES

[email protected]

[email protected]

13 In PF 0285 a place-name takes the position taken here by amma ([sheep/goats]

katukka kurme PN-na GN bel #-na); compare (sheep/goats) kurmin PN-na kadaka

nutannuyašna bel #-naPF-NN0719:4-7(C6)correspondingto account entriesofthe

form PAP NN amma nutannuyaš, PF 2009:14 (W). In other texts, amma appears

between aplacenameand the indicationof theyear: (donkeys)katukka kurmin

PN-na GN amma bel #-ummemanna PF-NN 0863:4-8; PF-NN 2140:4-8 (Category

D/C6?).

mailto:[email protected]



18

ARTA 2006.003


Bibliography

ANONYMOUS1934,RecentDiscoveriesatPersepolis,JRAS1934:226-232.

BONGENAAR, A.C.V.M. 1997, The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at Sippar: its

Administration and its Prosopography(PIHANS80),Leiden.

BRIANT,P. 1979(1982),L’élevageovindans l’empireachéménide,VIe-IVesiècles

avantnotreère,JESHO 22:136-161=Rois, Tributs et Paysans(Annaleslittéraires

del’UniversitédeBesançon269),Paris:331-356.

––––2002,From Cyrus to Alexander, a History of the Persian Empire, WinonaLake.

VAN DRIEL, G. 1993, Neo-Babylonian Sheep and Goats, Bulletin on Sumerian

Agriculture7:219-258.

VAN DRIEL, G. & NEMET-NEJAT, K. 1994, Bookkeeping Practices for an

InstitutionalHerdatEanna,JCS46:47-58.

FLANDIN,E.&COSTE,P.1851-52,Voyage en Perse, Paris.

FRYE, R.N. 1973, Introduction, in: R.N. Frye (ed.), Sasanian Remains from Qasr-i

Abu Nasr: Seals, Sealings and Coins(HarvardIranianSeries1),Cambridge(MA):

1-5.

GARRISON,M.B. 1996,APersepolisFortificationSealontheTabletMDP11308

(LouvreSb13078),JNES55:15-35.

GARRISON, M.B. & ROOT, M.C. 1998, Achaemenid History IX: Persepolis Seal

Studies,Leiden[correctededition].

GARRISON,M.B.&ROOT,M.C.2001,Seals on the Persepolis Fortification Tablets,I:

Images of Heroic Encounter(OIP117),Chicago.

GEHLKEN, E. 1990, Uruk: Spätbabylonische Wirtschaftstexte aus dem Eanna-Archiv I,

(AUWE5),Mainza.Rh.

GIOVINAZZO, G. 1989, Présence babylonienne dans les textes économiques de

Persépolis,AION49:201-207.

HAUSER, W. 1933, The Persian Expedition, in: The Egyptian and Persian

Expeditions, 1932-1933, Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Nov. 1933,

19

ARTA 2006.003


SectionII:39-44.

HALLOCK,R.T.1969,Persepolis Fortification Tablets(OIP92),Chicago.

HENKELMAN, W.F.M. 2005, Animal sacrifice and ‘external’ exchange in the

Persepolis Fortification Tablets, in: H.D. Baker & M. Jursa (eds.),

Approaching the Babylonian Economy: Proceedings of the START Project Symposium

Held in Vienna, 1-3 July 2004 (Studies in the Economic History of First

MillenniumBabylonia2=AOAT30),Münster:137-65.

HERZFELD,E.1926,Reisebericht,ZDMG80,225-284.

HINZ,W.1971,AchämenidischeHofverwaltung,ZA61,260-311.

HINZ,W.&KOCH,H.1987,Elamisches Wörterbuch(AMIErg.bd.17),Berlin.

JONES,C.E.&STOLPER,M.W.1986,TwoLateElamiteTabletsatYale,in:L.de

Meyer, H. Gasche & F. Vallat (eds.), Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae. Mélanges

offerts à M.-J. Steve,Paris:243-254.

KAWASE,T.1980,SheepandGoatsinthePersepolisRoyalEconomy,ASJ2:37-51.

––––1984,Femaleworkers‘pašap’inthePersepolisRoyalEconomy,ASJ 6:19-31.

––––1986, Kapnuški in the Persepolis Fortification Texts, in: L. de Meyer, H.

Gasche&F.Vallat(eds.),Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae. Mélanges offerts à M.-J.

Steve,Paris:263-275.

KOCH, H. 1990, Verwaltung und Wirtschaft im persischen Kernland zur Zeit der

Achämeniden(TAVOBeih.B89),Wiesbaden.

KOZUH, M.G. 2006, The Sacrificial Economy: On the Management of Sacrificial Sheep

and Goats at the Neo-Babylonian/Achaemenid Eanna Temple of Uruk (c. 625-520

B.C),Ph.D.Dissertation,UniversityofChicago.

DARIVA,R.2002,Der Ebabbar-Temple von Sippar in frühneubabylonischer Zeit (AOAT

291),Münster.

SUMNER,W.M.1986,AchaemenidSettlement inthePersepolisPlain,AJA90:3-

31.

TAVERNIER,J.2002,Iranica in de Achaemenidische Periode (ca. 550-330 v.Chr.),Ph.D.

dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven [revised edition forthcoming as

20

ARTA 2006.003


Iranica in the Achaemenid Period(ca.550-330B.C.)=OLA158,2007].

UPTON, J.M. 1973, The Site of Qasr-i Abu Nasr and a Description of the

Sealings, in: R.N. Frye (ed.), Sasanian Remains from Qasr-i Abu Nasr: Seals,

Sealings and Coins(HarvardIranianSeries1),Cambridge(MA):6-25.

VALLAT, F. 1993, Les noms géographiques des sources suso-élamites (RGTC 11 = TAVO

Beih.B7/11),Wiesbaden.

WHITCOMB,D.1985,Before the Roses and the Nightingales: Excavations at Qasr-i Abu

Nasr, Old Shiraz,NewYork.

WILKINSON,C.K.1965,TheAchaemenianRemainsatQapr-i-AbuNapr,JNES24:

341-45,pls.LXVI-LXXVII.

WINLOCK, H.E., HAUSER, W. & UPTON, J.M. 1934, The Persian Expedition,

1933-1934,Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art,Dec.1934,SectionII:3-22.

ZAWADSKI,S.2003,BookkeepingPracticesattheEannaTemple inUruk inthe

LightoftheTextNBC4897,JCS 55:99-123.

Documents

ARTA 2006.003 F.M. Henkelman Collège de France Matthew W ...€¦ · France Charles E. Jones - Blegen Library Matthew W. Stolper - Oriental Institute Achaemenid Elamite Administrative